Author	Message
anon-66p0	Posted: Wed, Jul 30 2014, 6:38 pm EDT    Post subject: Re: Cranbury home $399,900 (33 S. Main Street; reduced; sold) John2-q17r wrote: The foreclosure process started in November 2013. The homeowners apparently have decided to walk as - I guess - they became discouraged when a short sale did not go through. They didn't want to even talk to me about potentially buying it despite an offer of a small cash incentive. Maybe I am reading this wrong, but are you talking about a side cash kick back to seller? I hope you do realize that including "small cash incentive" in the scenario of a short sale or foreclosure is considered mortgage fraud. And I hope you realize that mortgage fraud is almost automatic jail time. And that whether or not they accepted your offer, offering alone is attempted mortgage fraud on your part (also a felony). Finally I hope you realize that mortgage companies pay big bucks for investigators to find comments like these and those investigators will find out what your real name is through the vail of your screen name in about 1 day?
John2-q17r	Posted: Mon, Jul 28 2014, 1:20 pm EDT    Post subject: Re: Cranbury home $399,900 (33 S. Main Street; reduced; sold) The foreclosure process started in November 2013. The homeowners apparently have decided to walk as - I guess - they became discouraged when a short sale did not go through. They didn't want to even talk to me about potentially buying it despite an offer of a small cash incentive.
anon-011q	Posted: Tue, Jun 10 2014, 9:14 am EDT    Post subject: Re: Cranbury home $399,900 (33 S. Main Street; reduced; sold) John2-po53 wrote: This house went into foreclosure in November 2013; it doesn't look like the short sale went through. Anyone have any info on this house? I have not seen a for-sale sign. It's likely not on the market.
John2-po53	Posted: Mon, Jun 9 2014, 11:06 pm EDT    Post subject: Re: Cranbury home $399,900 (33 S. Main Street; reduced; sold) This house went into foreclosure in November 2013; it doesn't look like the short sale went through. Anyone have any info on this house?
anon-25r3	Posted: Mon, Feb 18 2013, 12:03 am EST    Post subject: Re: Cranbury home $399,900 (33 S. Main Street; reduced) What's the latest on this house? For Sale sign has been gone for months but it still doesn't look occupied or maintained.
home	Posted: Sun, Aug 5 2012, 10:22 am EDT    Post subject: Re: Cranbury home $399,900 (33 S. Main Street; reduced) new price: $399,900.
Sean	Posted: Wed, Jun 6 2012, 5:30 pm EDT    Post subject: Re: Cranbury home $419,900 (33 S. Main Street; reduced) Also ceilings are under 7 feet, under 6'6" in some spots
bob	Posted: Tue, Jun 5 2012, 2:58 pm EDT    Post subject: Re: Cranbury home $419,900 (33 S. Main Street; reduced) Guest 2 wrote: Went on the market at a CRAZY high price for such a small house - and then they slowly reduced but now buyers are wary and they can't shake the uncertainty. This is a prime example of what happens when you fish for a high price. I'm not going to argue that it didn't go on the market high, but I don't understand your statement "crazy high price for such a small house." This is a 4 bedroom, 3 bath house with a separate living room, family room and office/den on top of the 4 bedrooms, and separate dining room and breakfast area. And the bedrooms are decent-sized, except that like all the old houses the master isn't huge like the more recent McMansions. Hardly "so small," in fact it is in-line with the average home on Main Street, larger than many. So I don't think the price was out of whack with the size, just that the state of the market for Main at the time and since. They started $100K above what it was bought for in 2006 when in fact the market had declined since then. That's not why it's not selling now though. The problem is it is a short sale and needs some foundation work. At the current price it is still a deal, but most people get scared away by the hassles of dealing with a bank in a short sale. In a healthy market it would get snapped up in a second by a flipper if not a true buyer. But this isn't a healthy market.
Guest 2	Posted: Tue, Jun 5 2012, 2:44 pm EDT    Post subject: Re: Cranbury home $419,900 (33 S. Main Street; reduced) Went on the market at a CRAZY high price for such a small house - and then they slowly reduced but now buyers are wary and they can't shake the uncertainty. This is a prime example of what happens when you fish for a high price.
home	Posted: Sun, Jun 3 2012, 10:43 am EDT    Post subject: Re: Cranbury home $419,900 (33 S. Main Street; reduced) new price: $419,900.
guest 333	Posted: Sun, Apr 22 2012, 8:15 pm EDT    Post subject: Re: Cranbury home $449,900 (33 S. Main Street; reduced) What's the story with this house? Why has it not sold? I see people there looking at it regularly. Is there a problem with it?
home	Posted: Sat, Jan 21 2012, 3:51 pm EST    Post subject: Re: Cranbury home $449,900 (33 S. Main Street; reduced) new price: $449,900.
Wonder	Posted: Sun, Dec 11 2011, 7:45 am EST    Post subject: Re: Cranbury home $499,900 (33 S. Main Street; reduced) wheat wrote: Wonder wrote: Wheat wrote: It's been listed for more than 10% below its January 2006 sale price for at four months now with gradual price reductions since then. When a seller lists their house By Owner for 5% less than they paid, their pricing strategy is essentially "I am going to get what I paid, less realtor commissions". That mindset is not the same as adjusting to dire market conditions. My point is, the seller did not adjust their price to the market conditions until 3 months ago, after the primary selling season. I'm sure they had their reasons, but now, in less than 3 months, they have drastically reduced their price heading into a historically slow season. I hope it works out for them. BTW, you're also wrong about the seller listing the house "for sale by owner" for 5% less than what they paid. The house has been handled by a realtor, with commissions, since March of this year. So you're whole statement about what was their mindset is shaky. Like many people they initially listed well above their previous purchase price but by the time they were reducing it below that they certainly had no reason to base their price on break-even based on a lack of commission since they were going to pay one. That also invalidates your made up theory about why you would reduce the commissions from their ask price since you're incorrect that they don't have any. Just some friendly advice that you may want to do a little free Internet research before you start stating "facts" that are easily disputed by the public record. Wheat, I based my opinion on the dates and price changes posted on this thread on Cranbury.info. Apparently, that was a mistake. According to Zillow, you're right. Have a nice day!
wheat	Posted: Sat, Dec 10 2011, 11:27 pm EST    Post subject: Re: Cranbury home $499,900 (33 S. Main Street; reduced) Wonder wrote: Wheat wrote: It's been listed for more than 10% below its January 2006 sale price for at four months now with gradual price reductions since then. When a seller lists their house By Owner for 5% less than they paid, their pricing strategy is essentially "I am going to get what I paid, less realtor commissions". That mindset is not the same as adjusting to dire market conditions. My point is, the seller did not adjust their price to the market conditions until 3 months ago, after the primary selling season. I'm sure they had their reasons, but now, in less than 3 months, they have drastically reduced their price heading into a historically slow season. I hope it works out for them. BTW, you're also wrong about the seller listing the house "for sale by owner" for 5% less than what they paid. The house has been handled by a realtor, with commissions, since March of this year. So you're whole statement about what was their mindset is shaky. Like many people they initially listed well above their previous purchase price but by the time they were reducing it below that they certainly had no reason to base their price on break-even based on a lack of commission since they were going to pay one. That also invalidates your made up theory about why you would reduce the commissions from their ask price since you're incorrect that they don't have any. Just some friendly advice that you may want to do a little free Internet research before you start stating "facts" that are easily disputed by the public record.
wheat	Posted: Sat, Dec 10 2011, 11:15 pm EST    Post subject: Re: Cranbury home $499,900 (33 S. Main Street; reduced) Wonder wrote: Wheat wrote: It's been listed for more than 10% below its January 2006 sale price for at four months now with gradual price reductions since then. The above comment is simply not accurate. The facts prove you wrong. Just deal with the fact that you're human and you made a mistake. My comments about "adjusting for commissions" were in relation to the seller's pricing strategy. When a seller lists their house By Owner for 5% less than they paid, their pricing strategy is essentially "I am going to get what I paid, less realtor commissions". That mindset is not the same as adjusting to dire market conditions. My point is, the seller did not adjust their price to the market conditions until 3 months ago, after the primary selling season. I'm sure they had their reasons, but now, in less than 3 months, they have drastically reduced their price heading into a historically slow season. I hope it works out for them. I have no idea why you are in denial of simple facts. The seller adjusted the price to $589,900 on 8/17/2011. If you want to split hairs that is slightly less than 10% below the purchase price in January 2006 of $652,000, though still more than the supposed 9% reduction average for the Township as quoted at the recent forum, and it was a week shy of 4 months ago, though still far closer to 4 than 3. And there have been gradual reductions since then. This is all a matter of public record and anyone can go to the Internet and confirm it for themselves. Those are the in disputed facts, not your spin on them. I have no idea what was in the seller's head and never commented on it. That's a whole different discussion but you shouldn't confuse them with simple facts about market prices.
Wonder	Posted: Sat, Dec 10 2011, 10:44 pm EST    Post subject: Re: Cranbury home $499,900 (33 S. Main Street; reduced) Wheat wrote: It's been listed for more than 10% below its January 2006 sale price for at four months now with gradual price reductions since then. The above comment is simply not accurate. The facts prove you wrong. Just deal with the fact that you're human and you made a mistake. My comments about "adjusting for commissions" were in relation to the seller's pricing strategy. When a seller lists their house By Owner for 5% less than they paid, their pricing strategy is essentially "I am going to get what I paid, less realtor commissions". That mindset is not the same as adjusting to dire market conditions. My point is, the seller did not adjust their price to the market conditions until 3 months ago, after the primary selling season. I'm sure they had their reasons, but now, in less than 3 months, they have drastically reduced their price heading into a historically slow season. I hope it works out for them.